Flyinglizard
New member
I have seen a few HONDOG street beaters with radiator caps in the intake tubes. Just swap the cap to change the dump pressure. Strange audio tho.
The Real STU (Super Turbo Über) Bitch thread
- Thread starter Z3_GoCar
- Start date
And as a follow-up to my last post, if you guys keep up with the pitchforks here, and continue to ignore our (Chris' and my) recommendations to send in formal requests via the CRB submission system, then I can assure you - from experience - that the CRB will tighten up the reigns on committee members' abilities to be forthright and open on this forum. It has happened before, it can happen again.
Make this is a useful back-and-forth of informal ideas, we're fine. Try to turn it into a pseudo-formal method of submitting formal requests - and then get Internet-pissy when they don't get seriously considered and/or implemented - then this goes away.
Your call. There's an existing system to get items/suggestions/ideas/requests on the CRB's agenda. Please use it.
- GA
Make this is a useful back-and-forth of informal ideas, we're fine. Try to turn it into a pseudo-formal method of submitting formal requests - and then get Internet-pissy when they don't get seriously considered and/or implemented - then this goes away.
Your call. There's an existing system to get items/suggestions/ideas/requests on the CRB's agenda. Please use it.
- GA
Typical answer from you.
Again, letters don't do dick, never have, never will. Case in point is SS, were we the competitors wrote a ton of letters about stainless brake lines being allowed. No performance advantage, and a cheap part for everyone. However it took several years to get this passed.
Joe, you don't know me well enough to even begin to understand what's "typical" from me. But that is irrelevant as I'm done trying to appease - or even listen to - you on this board.
If you have something constructive to offer, here's your suggestion box; as far as I'm concerned, everything else from you here goes directly into my "round file". You may feel better bloviating online, but I am going to simply ignore your whining, foot-stomping, and insults.
http://www.crbscca.com
.
.
.
.
Rabbit07
New member
This is not your fathers Oldsmobile Joe.
JMAC, you need to chill out. as an ITAC member, with ZERO dog in this fight, I can tell you that EVERYTHING requires a letter. the system requires a letter # for each posting into the TB. that's how we do it for record keeping.
yeah, you could post a letter as a comittee member, but generally we don't unless it's to clean up a mistake or push big rule changes. you'll see tGA's name a lot for STx rule changes, and mine or other ITAC members on occasion fixing little things in IT classifications.
it's all well and good to debate ideas and observations here, but it's not a rules change request. and if you don't get agreement from STAC members you discuss this with here, why would you think they would then push the idea forward themselves? if you have an idea, you write the letter, and a response will be posted. if you don't liek that response, post you actual letter online for others to consider.
It's pretty decent analog for old school democracy and while there are certainly politics involved in some decisions, I assure you from the guys I know on the STAC that there is NO pressure to obsolete NA cars in STU. none. They are making changes to slow the FI cars, bit by bit, and seeing how it shakes out. that's the path they chose, they've been open about that, and I think it's honorable that they have been so open. disagree all you want, they ARE doing what tehy say they are doing.
yeah, you could post a letter as a comittee member, but generally we don't unless it's to clean up a mistake or push big rule changes. you'll see tGA's name a lot for STx rule changes, and mine or other ITAC members on occasion fixing little things in IT classifications.
it's all well and good to debate ideas and observations here, but it's not a rules change request. and if you don't get agreement from STAC members you discuss this with here, why would you think they would then push the idea forward themselves? if you have an idea, you write the letter, and a response will be posted. if you don't liek that response, post you actual letter online for others to consider.
It's pretty decent analog for old school democracy and while there are certainly politics involved in some decisions, I assure you from the guys I know on the STAC that there is NO pressure to obsolete NA cars in STU. none. They are making changes to slow the FI cars, bit by bit, and seeing how it shakes out. that's the path they chose, they've been open about that, and I think it's honorable that they have been so open. disagree all you want, they ARE doing what tehy say they are doing.
That's sort of funny right there!
You miss my point; the CRB will almost always take the action that the AC dictates, or suggests. After all, the AC board members are the ones who are supposed to have the fair and balanced view of the class and what it needs. That is the whole point of an "Advisory committee" is it not?
I have nothing against Chris or Greg, I just think they are wrong in this instance. And I think they have not done enough research into what can be done to control, and police manifold pressure. A simple question; did anybody do any research into boost logging, and if so, could you please tell us who you contacted, and the input you got from them?
I, like several others, waited to see what would come of the great TIR reduction that got passed late last year. That along with the new tire rule was supposed to make things more even. Well it would appear it is not working so far based on the results from both coasts, correct? So now what? Keep reducing TIRs on various platforms? So what do we do if that's the case, when a turbo that did not run all year,for fear of getting busted, shows up as a 5 second a lap over dog at RA in September?
I have nothing against Chris or Greg, I just think they are wrong in this instance. And I think they have not done enough research into what can be done to control, and police manifold pressure. A simple question; did anybody do any research into boost logging, and if so, could you please tell us who you contacted, and the input you got from them?
I, like several others, waited to see what would come of the great TIR reduction that got passed late last year. That along with the new tire rule was supposed to make things more even. Well it would appear it is not working so far based on the results from both coasts, correct? So now what? Keep reducing TIRs on various platforms? So what do we do if that's the case, when a turbo that did not run all year,for fear of getting busted, shows up as a 5 second a lap over dog at RA in September?
Oh my god! I think I just laughed my spleen right out of my butt...!!
If someone wants to effect some kind of change in Club Racing, they've got to start with convincing a CRB member to carry their water.
K
JeffYoung
New member
Whoa, settle down there friend....Greg and Chris and co. are volunteers trying to do a hard job, dealing with membership and the CRB.
Letters do "do dick" and start the ball rolling. Write one and I'm sure these guys will give it fair consideration. You guys in ST are lucky to have a good committee right now, that really cares about the class and is willing to come here to discuss it.
Ok, I'm'a gonna violate my own promise, simply because I like Joe and he's trying to pull me back in with kindness. I tend to react positively to flattery.
Joe, I don't know how long you've been racing, honestly. But I don't think it has been very long. I infer that because of the above sentence. It's really the epitome of a Pollyanna naivete.
No, I have not "contacted anyone" about boost logging. But, I'll do you one better: I was racing a turbo car in Showroom Stock A in the 80's and early 90's. I raced a Dodge Omni turbo, a Shelby CSX, a Mistu Starion, and an Eagle Talon, all turbocharged. And this was in the good old days of when "Showroom Stock" was showroom stock. And I got to experience - first hand - what it was like when SCCA was doing its damndest to scrutineer turbo cars based on boost.
It was a freaking farce. Really, it was laughable. No, seriously, we lliterally laughed.
I personally experienced SCCA scrutineering of turbo cars -- local, divisional, and if you were around then you'll even remember the old "roving National Scru Crews" that would show up, unannounced, at some random National with gages and measurements and boost recorders and all kinda nifty toys that came in nice, well-sanded foam-lined wooden boxes and looked really cool and promised that they were going to ensure compliance. Unless the roving Scru Crew showed up it wasn't even worth trying to get around technical compliance, as we knew that there just wasn't enough manpower to bother with it. But if/when the Scru Crew showed up with their nifty toys we were able to get past all those nifty boost recorders with things as simple as fish aquarium restrictors. You want to see 12 psi boost from my Dodge Turbo? There you go, a nice flat line right at 11.99 psi. You wanted to see exactly 1" of wastegate diaphragm movement at 5 psi on my Dodge Conquest? There you go, .98 inches! Damned if I didn't have to replace rod bearings every session; funny thing, those Mitsu engines! Can't trust those thing in your farm truck!
They even had us make specific, proprietary fittings in our intake manifolds to connect these devices to. Problem is, no one bothered to remove the intake manifolds to see what the INSIDE of the these fittings looked like.
How about we have a couple beers in regards to those silly engine service limit numbers that are in the Factory Service Manual that are so easy to get around in the Tech Shed that's it's almost embarrassing to admit in mixed company...? Sh*t, Spec Miata has been in constant re-writing of their rules, actually codifying the cheats, to try and "fix" that.
Point is, Joe, I (as a National Scrutineer and a long-time competitor) know that we, as a collective group of racers, are far smarter and have a lot more resources than all of SCCA Technical combined. And I know it's nothing but child's play to get around it. I know it, I've done it, I've tried to defeat it both as a competitor and a scrutineer.
Can it be done? Sure, if we had a dedicated paid group of guys that could attend every Majors/National and individually ensure compliance. But we don't. Just doing it at the Runoffs ain't good enough. And given that you're already belly-aching about the first couple of non-Runoffs Majors weekend results, I have to infer that you, too, are concerned about compliance at the Majors/Nationals.
So you're completely wrong when you say that I say that it can't be done. It can; as you noted, Grand-Am is doing it. But last I checked the entry fees and paid staff of GA was a tad bit more than that of SCCA Club Racing...
Come up with a realistic, workable, every day solution, send it to your favorite back-door CRB member, and I'm all ears.
- GA
Greg, that was somewhat entertaining!
I can see there is really no interest on your part to look past all that long ago hard earned knowledge, and more into the new century. I too recall the good old days of the turbo cars I. SSA, and your right, it was a nightmare.
But we are soooo far beyond that now.
But I can see this is a losing battle. You guys are not going to get it fixed anytime soon, and a turbo car will most likely win at RA again this year. I hope your right, I really do, but I do t think so.
Btw, I'm pretty sure I have been racing a tad longer than you a this point, since I started in SSC in the late 70s,
Cheers
I can see there is really no interest on your part to look past all that long ago hard earned knowledge, and more into the new century. I too recall the good old days of the turbo cars I. SSA, and your right, it was a nightmare.
But we are soooo far beyond that now.
But I can see this is a losing battle. You guys are not going to get it fixed anytime soon, and a turbo car will most likely win at RA again this year. I hope your right, I really do, but I do t think so.
Btw, I'm pretty sure I have been racing a tad longer than you a this point, since I started in SSC in the late 70s,
Cheers
Greg, if your seriously interested in finding out, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you via phone, or email.
But the long and short is this; there are several electronic methods that are pretty simple, and easy to use. With a bit of work on the software, you could have both a running type logger, and/or max attained.
I would guess that the max attained value would be something you would set your normal tech crew up to read with a simple hand held interface. If there was some question about a reading, you could then send the download to national to be reviewed.
Is it defeatable, sure, everything is to some extent. But with a bit of forethought about placement in the manifold of the sensor( and no, sticking it in the plenum at any old port ain't what I'm talking about), would negate any of the old "fish regulator" tricks we all know. And as the whole set up would be solidstate, and the software inter keyed with an encryption algorithm, tampering by a competitor would be a bit on the tough side. It could even be set up with a telltale lamp, or series of lamps that would be easily visible to tech inspectors. Sort of a go/no go if you like.
Now, before you tell me I'm dreaming, and it's not possible, or too expensive; first, it's already being used in quite a few instances. Second, it's a drop in the bucket price wise on an STU car, and as we require each competitor to provide a transponder, so would FI cars be required to carry the required, speced module.
Now, the other side of this coin is what limits do you place on the cars in question, and that's not quite as easy to define. However, there is a good deal of data on most of these cars, and the effects of cam and DI (direct injection) phasing, as well as waste gate, and throttle mapping. So you could make an educated guess at where the boost limit to output ratio would be for most platforms. And regulation is simple; once the competitor figures out the combination of the above mentioned parameters( or at least the engine builder/tuner does), and starts to dominate, the boost pressure thresholds on his platform are adjusted by a few millibars.
If you wanted to get simplistic, an easy baseline would be a good load cel dyno, but of course the logistics are a bit harder to handle to get the same dyno for all the cars in question.
Greg, you asked for an answer, and I have given you at least one, there are others. This just happens to be the one I am most familiar with. My point in spending the time typing this was to show you that there are options that will work. Is it the ultimate solution, no! There will be sandbaggers, and folks with enough snap to think of the long game and bide their time til the runoffs. But with this system, if you wanted, you could set the rules to allow for on site adjustments.
Greg, we can agree to disagree on this, but the old argument of " we can't police it on a divisional level" just will not float. Give the competitors and the tech folks a bit more credit. The tech guys are almost always some of the sharper ( ok, I admit, not all the time) members of our band of misfits. And I flat guarantee if Chris showed up down here in Texas with the solstice and cleaned our clocks like at the runoffs with this system, there would be a bit of paper flying to find out WTF the deal was. In other words, the system of checks and balances works pretty well.
But the long and short is this; there are several electronic methods that are pretty simple, and easy to use. With a bit of work on the software, you could have both a running type logger, and/or max attained.
I would guess that the max attained value would be something you would set your normal tech crew up to read with a simple hand held interface. If there was some question about a reading, you could then send the download to national to be reviewed.
Is it defeatable, sure, everything is to some extent. But with a bit of forethought about placement in the manifold of the sensor( and no, sticking it in the plenum at any old port ain't what I'm talking about), would negate any of the old "fish regulator" tricks we all know. And as the whole set up would be solidstate, and the software inter keyed with an encryption algorithm, tampering by a competitor would be a bit on the tough side. It could even be set up with a telltale lamp, or series of lamps that would be easily visible to tech inspectors. Sort of a go/no go if you like.
Now, before you tell me I'm dreaming, and it's not possible, or too expensive; first, it's already being used in quite a few instances. Second, it's a drop in the bucket price wise on an STU car, and as we require each competitor to provide a transponder, so would FI cars be required to carry the required, speced module.
Now, the other side of this coin is what limits do you place on the cars in question, and that's not quite as easy to define. However, there is a good deal of data on most of these cars, and the effects of cam and DI (direct injection) phasing, as well as waste gate, and throttle mapping. So you could make an educated guess at where the boost limit to output ratio would be for most platforms. And regulation is simple; once the competitor figures out the combination of the above mentioned parameters( or at least the engine builder/tuner does), and starts to dominate, the boost pressure thresholds on his platform are adjusted by a few millibars.
If you wanted to get simplistic, an easy baseline would be a good load cel dyno, but of course the logistics are a bit harder to handle to get the same dyno for all the cars in question.
Greg, you asked for an answer, and I have given you at least one, there are others. This just happens to be the one I am most familiar with. My point in spending the time typing this was to show you that there are options that will work. Is it the ultimate solution, no! There will be sandbaggers, and folks with enough snap to think of the long game and bide their time til the runoffs. But with this system, if you wanted, you could set the rules to allow for on site adjustments.
Greg, we can agree to disagree on this, but the old argument of " we can't police it on a divisional level" just will not float. Give the competitors and the tech folks a bit more credit. The tech guys are almost always some of the sharper ( ok, I admit, not all the time) members of our band of misfits. And I flat guarantee if Chris showed up down here in Texas with the solstice and cleaned our clocks like at the runoffs with this system, there would be a bit of paper flying to find out WTF the deal was. In other words, the system of checks and balances works pretty well.
Joe, a well-thought-out response, and I completely agree with you in concept.
But the devil is in the details. The hangup is converting such a general idea and making it a " realistic, workable, every day solution". You know that we do not have the resources - and certainly not the motivation - within the Club to design, develop, install, support, and maintain such a solution. The STAC is 5 guys that meet for 2-3 hours once a month, and the CRB spends about as much time - probably less - discussing Super Touring concerns. SCCA's Technical Support group is one or two guys taking on all technical details of the Club for all classes (and they're currently one short). No one within this structure - all volunteers, except for Technical - on either committee/board is going to spend an inordinate amount of time and money to do all that work just for this one category. We're just simply not going to do that.
However, if your company, or any other one you know, is willing to take on that responsibility, I would be very interested in having them send to us a RFQ with very-general overview of what you propose, how you would implement and support it (both on a competitor and scrutineering side) and a general idea of how much it would cost all parties involved. If it appears to be an idea that the SCCA/CRB would like to pursue, then we could get into the specifics. And you'd have a lock on the market.
But to expect a volunteer club organization to take on that kind of time and money investment and to build an infrastructure to support is very, very unrealistic; that is truly not a "realistic, workable, every day solution".
I am certainly not going to invest any of my time and money into it, as I have nothing to gain, financially or personally.
So, find someone who does. Is that you?
- GA
But the devil is in the details. The hangup is converting such a general idea and making it a " realistic, workable, every day solution". You know that we do not have the resources - and certainly not the motivation - within the Club to design, develop, install, support, and maintain such a solution. The STAC is 5 guys that meet for 2-3 hours once a month, and the CRB spends about as much time - probably less - discussing Super Touring concerns. SCCA's Technical Support group is one or two guys taking on all technical details of the Club for all classes (and they're currently one short). No one within this structure - all volunteers, except for Technical - on either committee/board is going to spend an inordinate amount of time and money to do all that work just for this one category. We're just simply not going to do that.
However, if your company, or any other one you know, is willing to take on that responsibility, I would be very interested in having them send to us a RFQ with very-general overview of what you propose, how you would implement and support it (both on a competitor and scrutineering side) and a general idea of how much it would cost all parties involved. If it appears to be an idea that the SCCA/CRB would like to pursue, then we could get into the specifics. And you'd have a lock on the market.
But to expect a volunteer club organization to take on that kind of time and money investment and to build an infrastructure to support is very, very unrealistic; that is truly not a "realistic, workable, every day solution".
I am certainly not going to invest any of my time and money into it, as I have nothing to gain, financially or personally.
So, find someone who does. Is that you?
- GA
Greg, I guess you and I were not communicating on this very well before when we spoke at the runoffs about boost regulation. Perhaps that's my fault for not making myself clear, and part of my outrage on this forum when I hear the " it can't be done " argument. If so, on both counts, my bad.
To your challenge; this is almost a no brainier, hardware and software wise. IF, and really only if, you and Chris, along with the other STAC members would at least listen to a proposal, and I can get a general consensious form most of my competitors about implementing this, and maintaining it, we would be happy to.
I would need your assurance that if we were to present to you the hardware/ software to do this, that you guys would be willing to work with us to get the board to put it to use, so we can all go about leveling what we all understand is a rather uneven playing field.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, Greg, never have. But as an engineer, I get a bit POed when somebody around me tells me something can't be done, or we do it this way cause that's the way we always have. Guess it's a character flaw on my part, but it has served me well over the years.
Joe, can't promise nothin', but if you take some time to put together a general proposal on what you have in mind, Chris and I will pass it through the STAC and the CRB to see if there's interest. At that point you could do some deeper investigations on costs and how to implement and we go from there.
Just keep in mind when I state something like "it can't be done" I'm speaking not from an engineering perspective (I'm a MechE by education, IT guy by profession) I'm speaking about what can be reasonably done within the resources and culture of the organization (I'm also a MBA by education).
"Hit us with your best shot" and it'll get a fair audience.
- GA
Just keep in mind when I state something like "it can't be done" I'm speaking not from an engineering perspective (I'm a MechE by education, IT guy by profession) I'm speaking about what can be reasonably done within the resources and culture of the organization (I'm also a MBA by education).
"Hit us with your best shot" and it'll get a fair audience.
- GA
Greg, I'll be more than happy to do it. If it gets some support, and the CRB thinks its interesting, we will go from there.
BTW, I appreciate and understand why you and Chris were taking this stand. And I also understand we are a volunteer organization, having been a club member most of my life, and having been around it since I was born.
But we, as a club, need to look around and understand that we are no longer the only game in town. And, in my opinion, on issues like this, where there is some pretty deep discontent, we need to try to look for better answers. Least we run ALL of our competitors off to places where they don't say "can't be done".
thanks
Flyinglizard
New member
I wasnt kidding with the radiator cap thing. It looks as tho it can work, MOL. Look around the net..
Also my "Harry's lap timer" has the OBD port interrface and records the data.
Also my "Harry's lap timer" has the OBD port interrface and records the data.
Z3_GoCar
New member
While I respect our Tech folks, I don't think they're on the level of professional FIA tech crews, and if this can get around FIA tech, then how will local tech crews catch a TIR bypass:
http://jalopnik.com/5977371/racing-is-full-of-lance-armstrongs
That's why the turbo cars need to be in their own seperate class. Atmo cars are the majority at this point, not the turbo's so the problems still young enough to nip in the bud. If the solution is a year off, then so be it, at least the issue is being addressed.
http://jalopnik.com/5977371/racing-is-full-of-lance-armstrongs
That's why the turbo cars need to be in their own seperate class. Atmo cars are the majority at this point, not the turbo's so the problems still young enough to nip in the bud. If the solution is a year off, then so be it, at least the issue is being addressed.